 |
| |
|
|
Max Webster
|
|
Well US soldiers will always be sacrificial lambs for the greater good of America.
If you choose to be a soldier in the US army then you deserve whatever fate awaits you.
Go here http://www.militaryvideos.net/ and download the Marines in Fallujah videos. You will need a bit torrent program. Don't worry they download extremely fast.
Appears to me after watching those videos the marines are having a blast in Iraq. I think Bush would spoil the party if he pulled out now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
seems most of the deaths are in Haditha, in the far part of Anbar, near the syrian border. Problem is, with too few troops to seal the border, the USMC is trying to cut the ratlines from Syria by search and detain missions in the towns along the Euphrates, some of which are the most hostile in Iraq.
all in all the rate of bombings against civilians, after the post election lull, went up dramatically in April. Whether its stayed up, or gone down slightly since, depends on which stats you focus on. But overall, Id say, we're not making any direct progress on reducing the level of violence, and we ought to be honest about that. OTOH the violence doesnt seem to have stopped the process of recruiting and training Iraqi forces.
BTW, am i the only old enough (and just barely, at that) to recall what a milestone it was, when US combat deaths finally went BELOW one hundred a week?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
72? |
i think it was even earlier than that, 1971, I think. Im thinking of the first week it went below a hundred, not when it went consistently below a hundred.
ah, ive found something: November, 1970
"1970 Vietnam: US combat deaths down
US Military Assistance Command Vietnam reports the lowest weekly death toll in five years. Twenty-four Americans died in combat during the last week of October, the fifth consecutive week that the US death toll was under 50. Although the numbers of American dead were down, 431 were wounded during the reported period, mostly from mines, booby traps, and mortar and sniper fire. The reduced number of US casualties reflected the gradual transfer of the responsibility for the war to the South Vietnamese under President Nixon's Vietnamization program. While US troops were still conducting combat operations, more and more of them were being withdrawn from Vietnam and the nature of their operations became more defensive"
Last edited by lord of the mark on 03-08-2005 at 20:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bereta_Eder
|
|
the attacks appear to become more focused
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MOBIUS
|
 |
Prifysgol Caerdydd
Dec 1999
time: 15:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bereta_Eder
the attacks appear to become more focused |
The attacks on me, or the US soldiers?
The point is that the right-wing sheep that frequent this site in their droves have no argument whatsoever apart from their personal and slanderous attacks (at least I wasn't called 'clueless' though - that might have been the last straw!)...
For a start they appear mentally ill-equiped to realise that due to their thirst for war in Iraq, the blood is on their hands - if anyone in this thread should be accused of orgasming over the deaths of US soldiers it should be the likes of cowardly armchair generals like DanS, Dinodoc etc who have posted their hateful attacks whilst sitting in their ivory towers safe from the harm that the US soldiers have to risk everyday...
If it was down to me, no US soldiers would have died in Iraq because we wouldn't have invaded in the first place!
Instead we could have ploughed those hundreds of billions of $'s and hundreds of thousands of manpower into tracking down Al Qaeda to the ends of the Earth (nope they weren't in Iraq until the Coalition of the Killing invaded! )...
Perhaps Bin Laden might've been captured now - perhaps Afghanistan wouldn't still be the chaotic mess it still is because a certain numb-nuts president and his poodle lackey decided to jump into a totally irrelevant sideshow in the 'War on Terror'?
Maybe if the UK govt had spent all the billions it's spent in Iraq on its intelligence services, maybe just maybe the London bombers would have been intercepted before they struck? Maybe those bombers wouldn't have become radicalised in the first place if we hadn't invaded Iraq - cos they only became radicalised after the invasion of Iraq!!?
What about the events in Sudan, Iran, North Korea, Niger? By so effectively tying themselves down in a manpower quagmire the UK and US are little able to deal with the real potential threats and humanitarian crises around the World, and consequently people are dying from famine and genocide - and the world becomes a more dagerous place...
Nope, instead of actually tackling the issue at hand (Al Qaeda) the rightwing chickenhawks of which there are plenty on this forum, engaged in a massively overconfident ****ing contest.
I don't need to say I told you so, because I already did all that before the invasion - seems to me that since you guys are accusing me of having orgasms about this subject that you all are suffering from premature ejaculations for being so badly wrong from the start of this whole mess right the way up still taking unacceptable casualties so long after major hostilities were 'ended'. The were no WMD's, there was no Al Qaeda link - there is no exit strategy except to keep on getting soldiers killed and pouring billions into a vast festering black hole...
So keep with the personal insults - it means I know you guys have no credible answer, that you were and are wrong about invading Iraq and its aftermath...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-08-2005 18:33
|